Slashdot Mirror

Hwyman writes "TechWorld is reporting on the latest attack on open-source software by the Microsoft-backed Alexis de Toqueville Institution (ADTI). Many here will remember ADTI's previous assertion that Linux Torvald was NOT the true father of the Linux kernel. Taking the stance that OSS is in conflict with IP law, ADTI president Kenneth Brown states, 'After a brief glance at much open source software development, it becomes readily apparent that a number of open source practices directly conflict with best practices associated with protecting intellectual property.' With references like 'open sores software,' it's easy to believe that ADTI might be somewhat biased."

Hwyman writes "TechWorld is reporting on the latest attack on open-source software by the Microsoft-backed Alexis de Toqueville Institution (ADTI). Many here will remember ADTI's previous assertion that Linux Torvald was NOT the true father of the Linux kernel. Taking the stance that OSS is in conflict with IP law, ADTI president Kenneth Brown states, 'After a brief glance at much open source software development, it becomes readily apparent that a number of open source practices directly conflict with best practices associated with protecting intellectual property.' With references like 'open sores software,' it's easy to believe that ADTI might be somewhat biased."

x1048576 writes "The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is only one of a dozen different think tanks that have attacked Open Source. Why are all these think tanks so down on Open Source? Well, the Small Business Survival Committee is concerned that using open source will expose small business to the risk of lawsuits. Citizens Against Government Waste is concerned that the government might waste money on Open Source. Defenders of Property Rights is concerned that Open Source might be a threat to intellectual property rights. However, I was able to detect a common theme to all their criticism. They all seem to be funded by Microsoft."

Stephan Schulz writes "Andrew Tanenbaum has rebutted Ken Brown's reply to his original comments on the (in)famous AdTI report on Linux's origin. It's quite entertaining, and leaves little doubt (well, even less than before) that Brown is conciously twisting the truth. Choice excerpt: 'I'm pretty animated all the time. But I only get tense when people try to put words in my mouth. After half an hour of repeatedly answering the question "Could Linus have written the Linux kernel by himself?" in the affirmative, I was getting a bit irritated. ... People who know me would probably confirm that I do not suffer fools gladly.' I'd add that being called 'the good Professor' repeatedly would have me exploding in no time..."

An anonymous reader writes "Yes, I know it's getting boring by now, but the truth must be told... the latest Unix celebrity to come forward and criticise Ken Brown/ADTI is Unix pioneer Dennis Ritchie. The gist is that Brown is claiming an 'extensive interview' with Ritchie but this was actually limited to a single email exchange and a follow-up call from one of Brown's lackeys checking one or two facts." Reader markrages writes "Ken Brown (of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution) replies to his critics. Dr. Tanenbaum is an 'animated, but tense individual about the topic of rights and attribution'. The GNU/Linux naming issue also makes an appearance."

An anonymous reader writes "Yes, I know it's getting boring by now, but the truth must be told... the latest Unix celebrity to come forward and criticise Ken Brown/ADTI is Unix pioneer Dennis Ritchie. The gist is that Brown is claiming an 'extensive interview' with Ritchie but this was actually limited to a single email exchange and a follow-up call from one of Brown's lackeys checking one or two facts." Reader markrages writes "Ken Brown (of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution) replies to his critics. Dr. Tanenbaum is an 'animated, but tense individual about the topic of rights and attribution'. The GNU/Linux naming issue also makes an appearance."

twitter writes "The group that told us closed source was more secure than open source, now tells us that "Open source software, also described as free software, is the neutron bomb of IP" that will destroy 85% of the market value of US companies and drive companies who are currently outsourcing to "draconian measures even worse than outsourcing." So, there you have it, free software is responsible for bad laws, out sourcing and bad hair days." (Remember who funded the same group's report on open source security?)

twitter writes "The group that told us closed source was more secure than open source, now tells us that "Open source software, also described as free software, is the neutron bomb of IP" that will destroy 85% of the market value of US companies and drive companies who are currently outsourcing to "draconian measures even worse than outsourcing." So, there you have it, free software is responsible for bad laws, out sourcing and bad hair days." (Remember who funded the same group's report on open source security?)

In an article entitled Patents and the Penguin, the non-partisan Alexis de Tocqueville Institute observes, "[i]t is not uncommon today for patent fights to erupt even between parties that have engaged in rigorous diligence. By contrast, open source developers and distributors do not engage in patent searches, thus, there is a real possibility we will see a major patent fight involving open source, sooner than later. The article also ominously warns: "IBM will be competing with large Linux-based developers and distributors themselves. As the deployment of Linux increases, it can be expected that IBM will be going head-to-head with its "friends" in the Linux community. It is unquestionable that the biggest irony of all will be when Big Blue resorts to using its war chest of patents against a "friend" in the Linux community." Even Homer Simpson can see this coming.

In an article entitled Patents and the Penguin, the non-partisan Alexis de Tocqueville Institute observes, "[i]t is not uncommon today for patent fights to erupt even between parties that have engaged in rigorous diligence. By contrast, open source developers and distributors do not engage in patent searches, thus, there is a real possibility we will see a major patent fight involving open source, sooner than later. The article also ominously warns: "IBM will be competing with large Linux-based developers and distributors themselves. As the deployment of Linux increases, it can be expected that IBM will be going head-to-head with its "friends" in the Linux community. It is unquestionable that the biggest irony of all will be when Big Blue resorts to using its war chest of patents against a "friend" in the Linux community." Even Homer Simpson can see this coming.

Dave Wreski Writes: "This PDF article, written by Kenneth Brown of ADTI, attempts to explain that "Open source GPL use by government agencies could easily become a nation security concern. Government use of software in the public domain is exceptionally risky." The paper has been taken down since this reader submitted the link -- they promise to replace it by the end of the day -- but as of right now, it's still available here. Their accompanying press release is out too. You might remember that we ran a story on this whitepaper earlier. At the time, a CNET story said that it was going to link open-source to terrorism; it does so in a glancing reference on p. 8 to the FAA and "national security." But the thrust of the paper is "GPL bad, open-source good," coincidentally Microsoft's position, as was hinted-at in NewsForge's interview last week. In case they take the second copy of the paper down, we'll include some teaser quotes for you below. Update by HeUnique:The Register got some nice critique about this paper.

"Another security concern is that the primary distribution channel for GPL open source is the Internet. As opposed to proprietary vendors, open source is freely downloaded. However, software in the public domain could contain a critical problem, a backdoor or worse, a dangerous virus."

Reverse engineering "harbors very close to IP infringement because and has staggering economic implications." [sic]

"On a lighter note, while many open source enthusiasts are proponents for copyleft, they insist on trademark protection for their ideas."

"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This point is of considerable concern to software companies that value their secrets, design and architecture strategies. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange is benefiting equally, but without a means to properly make this evaluation, this position at best is over-assuming."

"The federal government's information systems requirements intersect countless sensitive operations. The limitless potential for holes and back doors in an open source product would require unyielding scrutiny by staff that decided to use it. For example, if the Federal Aviation Agency were to develop an application (derived from open source) which controlled 747 flight patterns, a number of issues easily become national security questions such as: Would it be prudent for the FAA to use software that thousands of unknown programmers have intimate knowledge of for something this critical? Could the FAA take the chance that these unknown programmers have not shared the source code accidentally with the wrong parties? Would the FAA's decision to use software in the public domain invite computer 'hackers' more readily than proprietary products?"

Dave Wreski Writes: "This PDF article, written by Kenneth Brown of ADTI, attempts to explain that "Open source GPL use by government agencies could easily become a nation security concern. Government use of software in the public domain is exceptionally risky." The paper has been taken down since this reader submitted the link -- they promise to replace it by the end of the day -- but as of right now, it's still available here. Their accompanying press release is out too. You might remember that we ran a story on this whitepaper earlier. At the time, a CNET story said that it was going to link open-source to terrorism; it does so in a glancing reference on p. 8 to the FAA and "national security." But the thrust of the paper is "GPL bad, open-source good," coincidentally Microsoft's position, as was hinted-at in NewsForge's interview last week. In case they take the second copy of the paper down, we'll include some teaser quotes for you below. Update by HeUnique:The Register got some nice critique about this paper.

"Another security concern is that the primary distribution channel for GPL open source is the Internet. As opposed to proprietary vendors, open source is freely downloaded. However, software in the public domain could contain a critical problem, a backdoor or worse, a dangerous virus."

Reverse engineering "harbors very close to IP infringement because and has staggering economic implications." [sic]

"On a lighter note, while many open source enthusiasts are proponents for copyleft, they insist on trademark protection for their ideas."

"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This point is of considerable concern to software companies that value their secrets, design and architecture strategies. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange is benefiting equally, but without a means to properly make this evaluation, this position at best is over-assuming."

"The federal government's information systems requirements intersect countless sensitive operations. The limitless potential for holes and back doors in an open source product would require unyielding scrutiny by staff that decided to use it. For example, if the Federal Aviation Agency were to develop an application (derived from open source) which controlled 747 flight patterns, a number of issues easily become national security questions such as: Would it be prudent for the FAA to use software that thousands of unknown programmers have intimate knowledge of for something this critical? Could the FAA take the chance that these unknown programmers have not shared the source code accidentally with the wrong parties? Would the FAA's decision to use software in the public domain invite computer 'hackers' more readily than proprietary products?"

Dave Wreski Writes: "This PDF article, written by Kenneth Brown of ADTI, attempts to explain that "Open source GPL use by government agencies could easily become a nation security concern. Government use of software in the public domain is exceptionally risky." The paper has been taken down since this reader submitted the link -- they promise to replace it by the end of the day -- but as of right now, it's still available here. Their accompanying press release is out too. You might remember that we ran a story on this whitepaper earlier. At the time, a CNET story said that it was going to link open-source to terrorism; it does so in a glancing reference on p. 8 to the FAA and "national security." But the thrust of the paper is "GPL bad, open-source good," coincidentally Microsoft's position, as was hinted-at in NewsForge's interview last week. In case they take the second copy of the paper down, we'll include some teaser quotes for you below. Update by HeUnique:The Register got some nice critique about this paper.

"Another security concern is that the primary distribution channel for GPL open source is the Internet. As opposed to proprietary vendors, open source is freely downloaded. However, software in the public domain could contain a critical problem, a backdoor or worse, a dangerous virus."

Reverse engineering "harbors very close to IP infringement because and has staggering economic implications." [sic]

"On a lighter note, while many open source enthusiasts are proponents for copyleft, they insist on trademark protection for their ideas."

"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This point is of considerable concern to software companies that value their secrets, design and architecture strategies. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange is benefiting equally, but without a means to properly make this evaluation, this position at best is over-assuming."

"The federal government's information systems requirements intersect countless sensitive operations. The limitless potential for holes and back doors in an open source product would require unyielding scrutiny by staff that decided to use it. For example, if the Federal Aviation Agency were to develop an application (derived from open source) which controlled 747 flight patterns, a number of issues easily become national security questions such as: Would it be prudent for the FAA to use software that thousands of unknown programmers have intimate knowledge of for something this critical? Could the FAA take the chance that these unknown programmers have not shared the source code accidentally with the wrong parties? Would the FAA's decision to use software in the public domain invite computer 'hackers' more readily than proprietary products?"

Dave Wreski Writes: "This PDF article, written by Kenneth Brown of ADTI, attempts to explain that "Open source GPL use by government agencies could easily become a nation security concern. Government use of software in the public domain is exceptionally risky." The paper has been taken down since this reader submitted the link -- they promise to replace it by the end of the day -- but as of right now, it's still available here. Their accompanying press release is out too. You might remember that we ran a story on this whitepaper earlier. At the time, a CNET story said that it was going to link open-source to terrorism; it does so in a glancing reference on p. 8 to the FAA and "national security." But the thrust of the paper is "GPL bad, open-source good," coincidentally Microsoft's position, as was hinted-at in NewsForge's interview last week. In case they take the second copy of the paper down, we'll include some teaser quotes for you below. Update by HeUnique:The Register got some nice critique about this paper.

"Another security concern is that the primary distribution channel for GPL open source is the Internet. As opposed to proprietary vendors, open source is freely downloaded. However, software in the public domain could contain a critical problem, a backdoor or worse, a dangerous virus."

Reverse engineering "harbors very close to IP infringement because and has staggering economic implications." [sic]

"On a lighter note, while many open source enthusiasts are proponents for copyleft, they insist on trademark protection for their ideas."

"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This point is of considerable concern to software companies that value their secrets, design and architecture strategies. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange is benefiting equally, but without a means to properly make this evaluation, this position at best is over-assuming."

"The federal government's information systems requirements intersect countless sensitive operations. The limitless potential for holes and back doors in an open source product would require unyielding scrutiny by staff that decided to use it. For example, if the Federal Aviation Agency were to develop an application (derived from open source) which controlled 747 flight patterns, a number of issues easily become national security questions such as: Would it be prudent for the FAA to use software that thousands of unknown programmers have intimate knowledge of for something this critical? Could the FAA take the chance that these unknown programmers have not shared the source code accidentally with the wrong parties? Would the FAA's decision to use software in the public domain invite computer 'hackers' more readily than proprietary products?"

dlur (among many others) writes: "According to this ZDNet article, a Washington think tank known as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is soon to release a study stating that Open Source Software allows terrorists an easy time hacking into our systems. It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft." The Register's story is good too. All the whoring reports in the world won't make open source any less secure. This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense and thinks Alexis de Tocqueville would have wanted the V-22 Osprey deathplane. Also, see what their coin-operated policy dispenser spat out for internet privacy (eat what you're fed) and antitrust (advantage of Microsoft monopoly: "manufacturers of computer hardware need to provide only one driver"). We weren't going to run this, but there were a lot of submissions, so ...

dlur (among many others) writes: "According to this ZDNet article, a Washington think tank known as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is soon to release a study stating that Open Source Software allows terrorists an easy time hacking into our systems. It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft." The Register's story is good too. All the whoring reports in the world won't make open source any less secure. This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense and thinks Alexis de Tocqueville would have wanted the V-22 Osprey deathplane. Also, see what their coin-operated policy dispenser spat out for internet privacy (eat what you're fed) and antitrust (advantage of Microsoft monopoly: "manufacturers of computer hardware need to provide only one driver"). We weren't going to run this, but there were a lot of submissions, so ...

dlur (among many others) writes: "According to this ZDNet article, a Washington think tank known as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is soon to release a study stating that Open Source Software allows terrorists an easy time hacking into our systems. It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft." The Register's story is good too. All the whoring reports in the world won't make open source any less secure. This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense and thinks Alexis de Tocqueville would have wanted the V-22 Osprey deathplane. Also, see what their coin-operated policy dispenser spat out for internet privacy (eat what you're fed) and antitrust (advantage of Microsoft monopoly: "manufacturers of computer hardware need to provide only one driver"). We weren't going to run this, but there were a lot of submissions, so ...

dlur (among many others) writes: "According to this ZDNet article, a Washington think tank known as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is soon to release a study stating that Open Source Software allows terrorists an easy time hacking into our systems. It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft." The Register's story is good too. All the whoring reports in the world won't make open source any less secure. This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense and thinks Alexis de Tocqueville would have wanted the V-22 Osprey deathplane. Also, see what their coin-operated policy dispenser spat out for internet privacy (eat what you're fed) and antitrust (advantage of Microsoft monopoly: "manufacturers of computer hardware need to provide only one driver"). We weren't going to run this, but there were a lot of submissions, so ...

dlur (among many others) writes: "According to this ZDNet article, a Washington think tank known as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is soon to release a study stating that Open Source Software allows terrorists an easy time hacking into our systems. It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft." The Register's story is good too. All the whoring reports in the world won't make open source any less secure. This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense and thinks Alexis de Tocqueville would have wanted the V-22 Osprey deathplane. Also, see what their coin-operated policy dispenser spat out for internet privacy (eat what you're fed) and antitrust (advantage of Microsoft monopoly: "manufacturers of computer hardware need to provide only one driver"). We weren't going to run this, but there were a lot of submissions, so ...